During my discussions in 1995 with Charity, a Professor CIE and my spiritual mentor, we discussed her views of providing welfare grants to citizens and other topics related to antisocial behavior of citizens. Here is a transcription of that conversation.
Charity: We are here. We manage, we direct, we do all for all humans. Let us do our responsibility.
Ralph: Well, now, if we take that to heart, then we would pretty well be able to eliminate all of our welfare departments,
Charity: Is that monetary again?
Ralph: Well, they are there to give them the monetary support they don’t have so they can pay for food and water and clothing..
Charity: We can understand that aspect. Some humans have more than other humans do. With the avenue of spiritually teaching and spiritual growing another human, you also are going to share your resources, necessary for survival itself. But what we are stating is that you as humans do not need to take, or physically protect, or negate our responsibilities, feel it is your responsibilities. The human population does need their nourishment to sustain their existence. That is fine. You can do that. That’s OK. But when the time has come for the non-existence of the human at that time, we have other avenues of non-existence.
Ralph: All right, now, I have met in prison men who killed their babies. They were living on the streets, they were Hippies, drug addicts, the wife was, too, and this baby came along, and they killed it. They then get sent to prison.
Charity: Let me stop you. We have a question for you. You have a different facial expression when you are talking regarding drug addicts and hippies and living on the streets, etc. Why does your facial expression change? Your facial expression seems to ourselves as something that you detest.
Ralph: Well, they are doing everything that is against my code of how to behave in a civilized society.
Charity: So therefore it is your code that you are dictating unto them?
Ralph: No, I'm not dictating. I don’t have to approve of what they do.
Charity: That’s all we wanted to know.
Ralph: If they choose to be there, fine. I don’t have to agree with that. They have other places they could go to that they have chosen not to go to. That’s frequently the fact. It isn’t that they are forced into it.
Charity: We were just wondering.
Ralph: But they are operating at a suboptimal level of social behavior regarding raising their children. And the children frequently end up being hurt, diseased, and killed.
Charity: You were stating just a second ago before we interrupted yourself that human men who are in your prison situation have gone out and killed their babies and then wound up in prison, and you were going to –
Ralph: Now, I'm just saying, that if you were to have it the way you would choose to have it, these people would still be killing their babies, and you would be taking care of the Essences of the babies, I mean, you have to anyhow, but would you let that man continue walking around the streets free to kill the next baby that came along? Because that is what he would probably do.
Charity: If it was designed for him, on that aspect to do, yes.
Ralph: That kind of an idea would create what we call Soft on Crime issue and would certainly be subject for a great deal of criticism. This is an awful man to harm an innocent child, who couldn’t even defend himself. And you’re just going to let him walk free?
Charity: Would you not want that human to come back and become a baby that it was going to, that that human body before had destroyed?
Ralph: Well this – you don’t care that the man did it, that it’s OK to kill all the babies you want? That is not a good idea. It does not teach him anything about –
Charity: You have to remember that everything that a human being learns and does in any of its lifetimes are going to be learned and redone again and either grown or stay the same until they can pass through. Each human has several eons of Life Plans until you have completed your Master Life Plan.
Ralph: Here I am saying that this would imply that there is no need for a social control system of any sort. Let everybody do whatever they want. That’s chaos.
Charity: You have to remember that you have different scenarios of what you are stating. We are looking at the Essence, you are looking at the human carcass, correct?
Ralph: Yes.
Charity: If the Essence of that human who had destroyed or killed that other life, that Essence was designed to do it and it carried it out to what had to be done. Then that’s fine. Then it would know that it would either have to be, per your society that you have now, that it knew that it would have to be locked away. That that was the way it was going to teach and learn to have their charge learn. Right? Now, on a different scenario basis, we can see an Essence there that at that time had destroyed that life as it was designed to do, but did it in such a way that it was turning. What could happen at that time is that that human would probably go into what you considered your prison, then something would spiritually happen to that human as it was incarcerated to have a lesson learned to itself, basically to the Essence. That is what it is. And you have the other scenario again which states, goes up to the same part of it, but the Essence is turned. It enjoyed the kill. It was talking to the humans about how it was going to destroy another. It might have been designed to go ahead and destroy two or three more, whatever the case may be. But the Essence is turned. Therefore when that human is caught, or that human could be destroyed by another human, in the same manner, at that time, we could take that Essence up and it would go into my school.
Ralph: Now, OK, one thing I left out of this scenario, which I think helps your argument, is that with the people I would see in a big city who are raising children on the street and not doing what I’d consider a proper job of giving them a home, and putting them in danger, we have the criminal justice system and the jails to respond to that. That’s what our culture consists of. OK? The Guardians have put them into this culture, where those jails exist, where those police departments are going to be active. Or the Guardians could have put them into some tribal culture in Africa where there are no jails, and they would behave again according to the customs of that territory.
Charity: That’s correct.
Ralph: So it’s all right for us to have the jails, as long as the people don’t operate with turned Essences running the jails.
Charity: That’s another avenue unto themselves.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Charity's Views on Swearing
During conversations in 1995 with Charity, a Professor CIE and my spiritual mentor, we discussed the various rules in the Ten Commandments. Here is the transcription of a discussion we had on swearing, taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Ralph: Alright, next it says, "Do not use my name for evil purposes. I, the Lord your God, will punish anyone who misuses my name." Now that's commonly said, "Do not state the name of God in vain." Don't use him for swear words.
Charity: We don't swear.
Ralph: It's saying to the people that people should not swear words, and the common one in conflict with this is when somebody says, "God damn you." That means, "I want God to condemn you to some horrible fate because you have made me unhappy." That's what "goddamn you" comes from. It’s a violation of this commandment.
Charity: First of all, The Creator does not, cannot and will not punish any human being. He made human beings to be exactly what they are. And He gave the Essences unto them.
Ralph: This is just using His name as an insult.
Charity: The Lord seems to ourselves – we don't understand why they use the name "The Lord." The Lord to ourselves does not mean anything, we don't even have a word that means anything close to that.
Ralph: Lord is master of any group.
Charity: Well, The Creator is not a master.
Ralph: Good point, that is what this implies, the master over a group, like the lord over servants.
Charity: Oh, no, the human beings are not servants. The human beings are still on this earth to live their lifetimes and to grow and to become Essences so they can take their places.
Ralph: The meaning I get of this is like in politics, you have a governor over a state, you have a president over the United States and he has armies and police he can call on, he enforces the laws and if he tells you you have broken the law, he can hire these people to put you in jail.
Charity: Again to ourselves, this is another rule that the humans have brought down and put down and "swear words" you say, if you use a swear word with The Creator's name in it, whatever The Creator's name might be.
Ralph: Yahweh was the most common one then.
Charity: Then therefore, if you do that, it goes against what they want the humans to do, so therefore they put that rule in there.
Ralph: When I asked Dave Gotlib some things about Jewish traditions, as he was horn into a Jewish family, one of the things he said was that, in his school, they were forbidden to use any word for God, such as Yahweh, being the most common one they used in the ancient Jewish times. That I think is how far they have gone. They can't even use the name, because it might be used for an evil purpose.
Charity: There were, first of all, there is no evil in our definition, in our space, and in our realm, there is no definition, there is no word, so how can The Creator say that if you use The Creator's name wrong, whichever the case would be, then it will be evil when there is no word in our language that states that aspect.
Ralph: The only thing that I know for sure that would be talking in opposition to this rule is when you say, "I want God to condemn you because you have done something to hurt me." This is known as "goddamn you." A swear insult.
Charity: That again is a revenge mode, is it not? The Creator is not going to dictate a revenge. The Creator only loves.
Ralph: This sort of implies that a person could get God to do some damage to this person, which is what we talk about in curses, and black magic, and voodoo.
Charity: The Creator is not going to do anything on that avenue. So there is no reason for a human to want The Creator to hurt another human being, that's not going to happen.
Ralph: But, in social structures, it's not nice to say those kind of nasty things to your neighbor. Correct? As a social rule, it's not nice to be insulting. You don't like a putdown.
Charity: For our sake, why use words that will try and harm a human being, another entity? There is no need for it to come up in intellectual conversation without using anything that might be hurtful to the other ones that are listening.
Ralph: That is about what this supports. You aren't supposed to hurt other people's feelings.
Charity: Correct.
Ralph: Alright, next it says, "Do not use my name for evil purposes. I, the Lord your God, will punish anyone who misuses my name." Now that's commonly said, "Do not state the name of God in vain." Don't use him for swear words.
Charity: We don't swear.
Ralph: It's saying to the people that people should not swear words, and the common one in conflict with this is when somebody says, "God damn you." That means, "I want God to condemn you to some horrible fate because you have made me unhappy." That's what "goddamn you" comes from. It’s a violation of this commandment.
Charity: First of all, The Creator does not, cannot and will not punish any human being. He made human beings to be exactly what they are. And He gave the Essences unto them.
Ralph: This is just using His name as an insult.
Charity: The Lord seems to ourselves – we don't understand why they use the name "The Lord." The Lord to ourselves does not mean anything, we don't even have a word that means anything close to that.
Ralph: Lord is master of any group.
Charity: Well, The Creator is not a master.
Ralph: Good point, that is what this implies, the master over a group, like the lord over servants.
Charity: Oh, no, the human beings are not servants. The human beings are still on this earth to live their lifetimes and to grow and to become Essences so they can take their places.
Ralph: The meaning I get of this is like in politics, you have a governor over a state, you have a president over the United States and he has armies and police he can call on, he enforces the laws and if he tells you you have broken the law, he can hire these people to put you in jail.
Charity: Again to ourselves, this is another rule that the humans have brought down and put down and "swear words" you say, if you use a swear word with The Creator's name in it, whatever The Creator's name might be.
Ralph: Yahweh was the most common one then.
Charity: Then therefore, if you do that, it goes against what they want the humans to do, so therefore they put that rule in there.
Ralph: When I asked Dave Gotlib some things about Jewish traditions, as he was horn into a Jewish family, one of the things he said was that, in his school, they were forbidden to use any word for God, such as Yahweh, being the most common one they used in the ancient Jewish times. That I think is how far they have gone. They can't even use the name, because it might be used for an evil purpose.
Charity: There were, first of all, there is no evil in our definition, in our space, and in our realm, there is no definition, there is no word, so how can The Creator say that if you use The Creator's name wrong, whichever the case would be, then it will be evil when there is no word in our language that states that aspect.
Ralph: The only thing that I know for sure that would be talking in opposition to this rule is when you say, "I want God to condemn you because you have done something to hurt me." This is known as "goddamn you." A swear insult.
Charity: That again is a revenge mode, is it not? The Creator is not going to dictate a revenge. The Creator only loves.
Ralph: This sort of implies that a person could get God to do some damage to this person, which is what we talk about in curses, and black magic, and voodoo.
Charity: The Creator is not going to do anything on that avenue. So there is no reason for a human to want The Creator to hurt another human being, that's not going to happen.
Ralph: But, in social structures, it's not nice to say those kind of nasty things to your neighbor. Correct? As a social rule, it's not nice to be insulting. You don't like a putdown.
Charity: For our sake, why use words that will try and harm a human being, another entity? There is no need for it to come up in intellectual conversation without using anything that might be hurtful to the other ones that are listening.
Ralph: That is about what this supports. You aren't supposed to hurt other people's feelings.
Charity: Correct.
Charity's Views on Stealing
During my conversations in 1995 with Charity, a Professor CIE and my spiritual mentor, we covered the Ten Commandments. Here is a transcript of our discussion about stealing.
Ralph: Now I do understand a little bit, I remember the history of the Ten Commandments, they had a new city and such being built there and there was chaos and disorder and Moses was their leader and he has to say, "Behave, folks, you know, Basically, here's our constitution for running this place. Don't kill anybody, Don't steal from people, Don't go stealing their wives."
Charity: What are the other avenues of these Ten Commandments? You quoted one.
Ralph: “You shall not steal” is another one.
Charity: Which means?
Ralph: Don't take something that they own from somebody. Don't go steal his horse.
Charity: Why should that be a commandment from The Creator?
Ralph: I'm just telling you it's listed there.
Charity: That does not exist.
Ralph: If the man has a horse to get around on, if you steal it, he can't get around. That's not right.
Charity: But why should one human have something the other human does not have?
Ralph: Well, if the other human wants a horse, he should earn the money to buy the horse. Or he should ask to borrow the horse. He shouldn't go and sneak it out in the middle of the night without permission.
Charity: What's the difference between stealing per se and taking it without asking?
Ralph: Without permission and therefore depriving him of something he rightfully owned in the first place.
Charity: But still there is not a commandment as per se or a rule from The Creator in our realm. We don't take something without asking. Why would it therefore be a rule of The Creator when The Creator knows what's – we all have the same aspects as all in our space.
Ralph: Excellent point. I'm just bringing it up as another reason why so many people get to CMC and Avenal State Prisons, for stealing things.
Charity: That does not equate.
Ralph: That's where we get the message that this is a no-no thing to do and The Creator disapproves of it, so therefore we should pass laws against it.
Charity: First of all, The Creator would not exercise that rule at all because The Creator knows what we have in Thoughtspace, we're all the same for all of us. Therefore no rule would be passed or created by The Creator to make note of a human aspect. So that is not from The Creator.
Ralph: Well, I think you can see it as a reasonable principle for a tribe of people setting up a little town.
Charity: That would be a reasonable explanation for another human to put that as a rule, but then use it as stating it, "It's not my rule," as stating the human, but God’s or The Creator's rule. That way it is enforced why that rule was written down. Therefore as you say, it is not The Creator's rule.
Ralph: I think you are quite logical about that. I'm just pointing out that was the second one that Moses brought down to his tribe from the mountain top where he said God gave it to him.
Charity: As we have said, The Creator created the human population. The Creator is not going to lay down these rules of conduct to the human population. All these are done by the human population to control the population.
Ralph: Well, they've been used for that for a long time. Well, the next one beyond that is "Do not desire another man's wife, do not desire his house, his land, his slaves, his cattle, his donkeys or anything else that he owns."
Charity: OK
Ralph: That's next to "do not steal" – do not want them. So I would think you would have the same reasoning as the "do not steal" issue. You are not there concerning yourself with owning these things.
Charity: No, you humans are.
Ralph: A good social rule.
Charity: Of course, you are going through these somewhat fast.
Ralph: I'm just trying to make sure we cover all the items, because those are all laid down as God's rules of conduct and every church goes by these things in what they preach. And then they stand up there and make you feel guilty if you have failed to follow them all. And that is a major control mechanism in our culture.
Charity: Again, it is a control feature that you humans have applied to other humans.
Ralph: That is what it says, "These are the commandments that the Lord gave to all of you when you were gathered at the mountain when you spoke with a mighty voice from the fire and from the thick clouds, He gave us these commandments and no others." No amendments allowed, I guess. "Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me."
Charity: Is that not what –
Ralph: There they were, written all out on the stone tablets.
Charity: Why would The Creator want to write out something that He delegated to the human population on fixed rules? There are no rules in our realm. Why should The Creator choose to have rules for the human population? Why would He need to change the avenue of the way things are run?
Ralph: Now I do understand a little bit, I remember the history of the Ten Commandments, they had a new city and such being built there and there was chaos and disorder and Moses was their leader and he has to say, "Behave, folks, you know, Basically, here's our constitution for running this place. Don't kill anybody, Don't steal from people, Don't go stealing their wives."
Charity: What are the other avenues of these Ten Commandments? You quoted one.
Ralph: “You shall not steal” is another one.
Charity: Which means?
Ralph: Don't take something that they own from somebody. Don't go steal his horse.
Charity: Why should that be a commandment from The Creator?
Ralph: I'm just telling you it's listed there.
Charity: That does not exist.
Ralph: If the man has a horse to get around on, if you steal it, he can't get around. That's not right.
Charity: But why should one human have something the other human does not have?
Ralph: Well, if the other human wants a horse, he should earn the money to buy the horse. Or he should ask to borrow the horse. He shouldn't go and sneak it out in the middle of the night without permission.
Charity: What's the difference between stealing per se and taking it without asking?
Ralph: Without permission and therefore depriving him of something he rightfully owned in the first place.
Charity: But still there is not a commandment as per se or a rule from The Creator in our realm. We don't take something without asking. Why would it therefore be a rule of The Creator when The Creator knows what's – we all have the same aspects as all in our space.
Ralph: Excellent point. I'm just bringing it up as another reason why so many people get to CMC and Avenal State Prisons, for stealing things.
Charity: That does not equate.
Ralph: That's where we get the message that this is a no-no thing to do and The Creator disapproves of it, so therefore we should pass laws against it.
Charity: First of all, The Creator would not exercise that rule at all because The Creator knows what we have in Thoughtspace, we're all the same for all of us. Therefore no rule would be passed or created by The Creator to make note of a human aspect. So that is not from The Creator.
Ralph: Well, I think you can see it as a reasonable principle for a tribe of people setting up a little town.
Charity: That would be a reasonable explanation for another human to put that as a rule, but then use it as stating it, "It's not my rule," as stating the human, but God’s or The Creator's rule. That way it is enforced why that rule was written down. Therefore as you say, it is not The Creator's rule.
Ralph: I think you are quite logical about that. I'm just pointing out that was the second one that Moses brought down to his tribe from the mountain top where he said God gave it to him.
Charity: As we have said, The Creator created the human population. The Creator is not going to lay down these rules of conduct to the human population. All these are done by the human population to control the population.
Ralph: Well, they've been used for that for a long time. Well, the next one beyond that is "Do not desire another man's wife, do not desire his house, his land, his slaves, his cattle, his donkeys or anything else that he owns."
Charity: OK
Ralph: That's next to "do not steal" – do not want them. So I would think you would have the same reasoning as the "do not steal" issue. You are not there concerning yourself with owning these things.
Charity: No, you humans are.
Ralph: A good social rule.
Charity: Of course, you are going through these somewhat fast.
Ralph: I'm just trying to make sure we cover all the items, because those are all laid down as God's rules of conduct and every church goes by these things in what they preach. And then they stand up there and make you feel guilty if you have failed to follow them all. And that is a major control mechanism in our culture.
Charity: Again, it is a control feature that you humans have applied to other humans.
Ralph: That is what it says, "These are the commandments that the Lord gave to all of you when you were gathered at the mountain when you spoke with a mighty voice from the fire and from the thick clouds, He gave us these commandments and no others." No amendments allowed, I guess. "Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me."
Charity: Is that not what –
Ralph: There they were, written all out on the stone tablets.
Charity: Why would The Creator want to write out something that He delegated to the human population on fixed rules? There are no rules in our realm. Why should The Creator choose to have rules for the human population? Why would He need to change the avenue of the way things are run?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Charity's Views on Prostitution
During 1995, I had many conversations with Charity, a Professor CIE and my spiritual mentor. One of them was about her opinions on prostitution. Here is a recording of that discussion.
Ralph: Well, ethics we were talking about. That's going to be a biggie. You're concerned about ethics. And I'm concerned about ethics. What are ethics? An example was that movie, “A Little Whorehouse in Texas” last night, which is a typical example of the conflict that goes on. All the laws, all the religions, and the constitution say that prostitution is an evil, bad, illegal, awful thing to do. Yet it has been on earth ever since there have been humans, apparently, as far as our recorded history can tell. It hasn't been abolished by all the laws that have been passed against it. That story was how it fitted into this little town and they didn't mind it in this little town, but the outside do-gooder comes in and says, "Oh, you bad people here, you are breaking the moral code of Texas by allowing this evil institution to exist here." And they threw him out of town. And that is a typical example of the conflicts that occur. So, how do you think about such things?
Charity: Regarding what aspects?
Ralph: The ethics of prostitution. Do you approve of prostitutes operating? That's the kind of thing people would ask. What do the CIE think about these prostitutes?
Charity: What is prostitution?
Ralph: Those are women who are selling their sex for money. They will have sexual intercourse with men if they are paid cash for it.
Charity: So, it's an occupation, is it not?
Ralph: Yes, it's a way of making a living.
Charity: OK, so what's the problem?
Ralph: What's the problem? Well, I believe there was a book that defined it; it was called “Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But Never Dared Ask”. His principle was that sex was only right if it's done for procreation or fun.
Charity: Who wrote it?
Ralph: That was a psychiatrist who wrote this book. Now I thought it made pretty good sense to me. But when it's being done for profit, and therefore also exploitation, it gets into a business,
Charity: Exploitation of whom?
Ralph: Of the women.
Charity: But if the women are doing it for money, making it an occupation, how is it exploitation?
Ralph: Well, let me put it this way. From what I know of some prostitutes, they also are exploiting the other direction, because most of them hate men, and this is a way of taking something from men that ordinarily would be given without cash. They are exploiting the men, too. It is a manipulative device in both directions, depending on the attitude of the person. Many of these women don't have any occupation, they don't have any marketable skills, and therefore there is no business they can go to work for, and this they don't need a marketable skill for. They just lie there.
Charity: Are they doing it for – see, we don't understand.
Ralph: There are different women, of course.
Charity: It sounds to us that the Essences that they have have completely turned and are using their charges for complete destruction, for annihilation, or they just don't want to be an Essence anymore. Therefore they have the body doing what it's doing now. Faith has told you that she is in charge of all matters of jobs; by matters of jobs, the Essence also has to be ready and willing to accept the occupation that it is ascribed to by the Guardian. It seems to us that the Essences of these women therefore have turned or are turning or on their last existence with life time to be able to bring them back to school.
Ralph: This is a good example of a behavior that has been disapproved of by every legal code that we know of, but, it has been approved of by the people in every culture anyhow, and we have the state of Nevada, next door to us, that has made it legal – you get a license and you're examined, and it’s all done as a legal business. It's the only state in the country that has it as a legal business. And you have places in Holland where they have blocks where these ladies have their apartments, and you can come in and have sex with them for money. It's part of the business of the city. So you have the universal, let's let 'em lie, but we'll still make it a bad thing officially. It's a good example of one of the hypocracies of our world.
Charity: Called a two way sword?
Ralph: Everybody rails against it, but you have some of our better leaders going out and using these prostitutes for one purpose or another, for themselves or to entertain visiting businessmen. We just had a recent trial with Heidi Fleiss in Hollywood who was doing this with visiting businessmen that had a lot of money.
Charity: They did not feel comfortable with the mate that they were proscribed with?
Ralph: No, it's more like entertainment when they are visiting a foreign country. In many countries, like Japan, this is a custom that they want a woman to go to bed with when they visit the United States or England or Germany. This is part of what they consider entertainment, like going out to the opera for some other people.
Charity: But for humans that is not entertainment. Entertainment per se as we understand it, it sounds to us that they were trying to get hold of something to satisfy the innate urges that The Creator has instilled into all humans.
Ralph: Well that's part of it, but I think many people like having some nice person of the opposite sex to be with and talk with, to enjoy the company of when they are in a strange town.
Charity: If that is the correct terminology, they are not – in the terms of the mate situation, it is still the correct term for the mate at home, for they are still mated. The ones who come to another country and enjoy the company of another one of your species, then they therefore are not mates because they are not mated.
Ralph: It is a one time thing.
Charity: But what you had just stated to us was that they go out and enjoy the company and that's it.
Ralph: Mostly, what I've heard, not having done it myself; a lot of people who hire prostitutes for an evening of company are not looking for the sexual activity as the primary goal. They are lonely, and these prostitutes learn to be sociable and entertaining, and they talk a lot. That's what they are really appreciated for. The sex is the ticket to get in the door. They will have sex at the end of the evening. But many guys, I understand, that hire them, are lonely people who haven't got many social skills and don't have any girlfriends to take out, and they don't have a wife. So that is the local people. The visiting ones, when they are out of town and their relatives aren't going to know about it at home, can pretty well pretend they are single. A lot of men do this. I've seen them in the AF; pilots did it frequently going to other countries for training. Pilots were unique in this, I understand. They could simply dissociate themselves from the family at home. They weren't criticizing the family at home. In their minds, they didn't have a family at home. When they landed there, there was no family at home. Some set up a whole new family in the other country. They married another woman and had children in another home for six months there and back for six months at their home country. They dissociated between the two. There were some men who were able to do that, and it was a major problem for the AF, for the wives at home got very upset. Those are different ways of it happening. All of that is considered BAD when you have sex outside of your marriage partner.
Charity: Because of the physical act, then that is considered bad.
Ralph: That makes it bad, yes. You can socialize, and they won't consider it bad.
Charity: But if you go to the point of coming to wherever you are, in the company of someone of the opposite gender, to converse, to talk to, to enjoy a movie, or whatever, that is accepted.
Ralph: That is moral, yes.
Charity: But to have sex, to bring it one step farther, then that is not appropriate.
Ralph: Correct. That's the code.
Charity: That makes no sense to ourselves.
Ralph: Well, that is why I am bringing it up.
Charity: So, if, for instance, with you talking to Marie, then you are in the acceptable standard. Therefore there should not be any, by any other humans observing the situation, they would know there is nothing else that goes further, correct?
Ralph: Well, if they don't see anything gross, like if we do not go into an apartment and stay there overnight and come out the next morning after breakfast, if we do that, then anyone would assume that we were doing something immoral. Because we could have.
Charity: But if nothing had happened at that time, why would the assumptions be made that they would do that?
Ralph: That's humans. They will assume that they were made. Then you must defend yourself against that.
Charity: Why would that be necessary?
Ralph: If you came before a judge or referee, such as in a divorce court. "Did he or did he not have sex with that person he spent all night with?"
Charity: But that's not an issue if nothing happened. You might have come over as a friend.
Ralph: True, and slept on the floor.
Charity: And needed to do such things,
Ralph: You are right, but, humans will assume the likelihood, the probability that two people in an apartment with one bedroom all night long will have had sex. That is going to he an automatic assumption of 95% of people who face that situation.
Charity: The assumptions are inadequate, inconsistent. The only way that the assumptions – no assumptions can ever be validated. The only way that anyone could know what had happened behind closed doors would be the individuals there or, if they advertised it.
Ralph: Or had a videotape.
Charity: Right, but if humans find it necessary to assume things that they do not have access to that will make their assumptions correct when no assumptions can be correct.
Ralph: There are principles that have been decided by judges on these matters. They talk about what the reasonable man, or the average person would think of in these situations. Now these are hypothetical, average person, a person who doesn't exist. This is lawyer talk. You have to understand lawyers make up meanings of words to suit their purposes. But this is what we face. And they would say that the odds are over 50% that if two people of opposite sex spend all night long in an apartment, that they had sex. That over half of them would have had sex. A reasonable man would assume that, and it would be true. That means you count up 100 people and 51 of them had sex under those conditions.
Charity: What do they do with the other percent?
Ralph: I'm just telling you what they talk like. I'm not debating your point. This is what we are faced with in our society. In the present world, this gets into politicians running for office, and the newspapers reporting about the girlfriends they had 20 years ago. You have one going right now with Mr. Gingrich, who is the head of Congress, and they are now coming up and they are saying that during his first marriage, he had sex with a campaign worker one time. You are talking about 25 years ago. Therefore – nobody says that is true or not, but they claim that probably happened. And therefore they are all concerned about the appearance of impropriety, of a sinful act. And this is the culture of the day, now. The newspaper people are looking for the appearance of an unsavory behavior that can besmirch this man's reputation. You didn't have to have done it, but if you went behind closed doors, with a female and was there longer than an hour, someone is going to think that he must have had sex with her during that hour. And that is the appearance of evil. We have gotten to that point. This is not a healthy development, but I'm letting you know that is what we have gotten in our culture by now. So the business of ethics is a two edged sword because there is nobody on earth that can't be caught on an appearance of an undesirable act when you use the kind of standards that I mention. And we are at the point where you don't dare touch a female of the opposite sex or go behind a closed door with them. Because then the appearance of impropriety will be brought up, and you can't even have that if you are going to run for public office.
Charity: Any human can become involved in a situation like that.
Ralph: That's exactly true. That is why you aren't getting very good people running for public office because the smart ones don't, those with any ability; why should they waste their time? You can't defend yourself; there's no way you can prove you didn't do something.
Charity: Correct.
Ralph: And that's what they're asking. Prove you didn't do something immoral when you two were behind that closed door.
Charity: You can't prove anything because it's going to be impossible to disprove it.
Ralph: Correct. In the past, its been up to the accuser to prove something happened behind that closed door.
Charity: Is there not a law in your justice system that states you are innocent until proven guilty?
Ralph: What about these big ethical issues of the day? Prostitution you mentioned already, with women selling their sex for money, and you don't get all up in arms about it. I thought that would be something that you would think would be a generally poor use of their bodies.
Charity: They are not hurting themselves. Why should we be concerned?
Ralph: Because, again, of one of the rules of God, as pronounced by the churches.
Charity: Did you happen to bring the book so we could finish up?
Ralph: I'm sorry. I don't know where it is. You are not supposed to have sex for any purpose but for having children. That is very clear in the Catholic church at least. You cannot even have fun. I mentioned that. The Catholic Church would never approve of that, you are not supposed to have fun that way.
Charity: The Creator made the human being to have, as we understand, a drive, so how can you, as a human, keep that drive from not occupying and not being used and discharged'?
Ralph: The Catholic church has said, "You should stay away from all women and only live with men if you are a man." That is what the priests do. Then they start molesting little boys and acting homosexually. So I don't think it works out too well.
Charity: So what we understand is that it is a rule of the Church or the religious function to put this onto human beings to make them perfect unto the sight of The Creator, correct?
Ralph: Yes, the results are in the quotations in the book on The Origin of Satan, that the idea of being pure spiritually included castration, of all things, so they couldn't have sex or babies. They cut it off. That was supposed to make them even purer. Some of these great theologians did that.
Charity: If that is supposed to have made them purer, then they would not have been born into a male or female species.
Ralph: We only have those two choices.
Charity: You have what we are.
Ralph: These are the only two choices we've got.
Charity: Or they would not have been born. Therefore no aspect of a human is perfect, nothing.
Ralph: OK.
Charity: So why try to be something or attain something that is totally unobtainable?
Ralph: Because that makes you like Christ. I think that would be the card that they would use.
Charity: And Christ was supposed to have been the son of The Creator
Ralph: Because he never had sex with anyone all his life.
Ralph: Well, ethics we were talking about. That's going to be a biggie. You're concerned about ethics. And I'm concerned about ethics. What are ethics? An example was that movie, “A Little Whorehouse in Texas” last night, which is a typical example of the conflict that goes on. All the laws, all the religions, and the constitution say that prostitution is an evil, bad, illegal, awful thing to do. Yet it has been on earth ever since there have been humans, apparently, as far as our recorded history can tell. It hasn't been abolished by all the laws that have been passed against it. That story was how it fitted into this little town and they didn't mind it in this little town, but the outside do-gooder comes in and says, "Oh, you bad people here, you are breaking the moral code of Texas by allowing this evil institution to exist here." And they threw him out of town. And that is a typical example of the conflicts that occur. So, how do you think about such things?
Charity: Regarding what aspects?
Ralph: The ethics of prostitution. Do you approve of prostitutes operating? That's the kind of thing people would ask. What do the CIE think about these prostitutes?
Charity: What is prostitution?
Ralph: Those are women who are selling their sex for money. They will have sexual intercourse with men if they are paid cash for it.
Charity: So, it's an occupation, is it not?
Ralph: Yes, it's a way of making a living.
Charity: OK, so what's the problem?
Ralph: What's the problem? Well, I believe there was a book that defined it; it was called “Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But Never Dared Ask”. His principle was that sex was only right if it's done for procreation or fun.
Charity: Who wrote it?
Ralph: That was a psychiatrist who wrote this book. Now I thought it made pretty good sense to me. But when it's being done for profit, and therefore also exploitation, it gets into a business,
Charity: Exploitation of whom?
Ralph: Of the women.
Charity: But if the women are doing it for money, making it an occupation, how is it exploitation?
Ralph: Well, let me put it this way. From what I know of some prostitutes, they also are exploiting the other direction, because most of them hate men, and this is a way of taking something from men that ordinarily would be given without cash. They are exploiting the men, too. It is a manipulative device in both directions, depending on the attitude of the person. Many of these women don't have any occupation, they don't have any marketable skills, and therefore there is no business they can go to work for, and this they don't need a marketable skill for. They just lie there.
Charity: Are they doing it for – see, we don't understand.
Ralph: There are different women, of course.
Charity: It sounds to us that the Essences that they have have completely turned and are using their charges for complete destruction, for annihilation, or they just don't want to be an Essence anymore. Therefore they have the body doing what it's doing now. Faith has told you that she is in charge of all matters of jobs; by matters of jobs, the Essence also has to be ready and willing to accept the occupation that it is ascribed to by the Guardian. It seems to us that the Essences of these women therefore have turned or are turning or on their last existence with life time to be able to bring them back to school.
Ralph: This is a good example of a behavior that has been disapproved of by every legal code that we know of, but, it has been approved of by the people in every culture anyhow, and we have the state of Nevada, next door to us, that has made it legal – you get a license and you're examined, and it’s all done as a legal business. It's the only state in the country that has it as a legal business. And you have places in Holland where they have blocks where these ladies have their apartments, and you can come in and have sex with them for money. It's part of the business of the city. So you have the universal, let's let 'em lie, but we'll still make it a bad thing officially. It's a good example of one of the hypocracies of our world.
Charity: Called a two way sword?
Ralph: Everybody rails against it, but you have some of our better leaders going out and using these prostitutes for one purpose or another, for themselves or to entertain visiting businessmen. We just had a recent trial with Heidi Fleiss in Hollywood who was doing this with visiting businessmen that had a lot of money.
Charity: They did not feel comfortable with the mate that they were proscribed with?
Ralph: No, it's more like entertainment when they are visiting a foreign country. In many countries, like Japan, this is a custom that they want a woman to go to bed with when they visit the United States or England or Germany. This is part of what they consider entertainment, like going out to the opera for some other people.
Charity: But for humans that is not entertainment. Entertainment per se as we understand it, it sounds to us that they were trying to get hold of something to satisfy the innate urges that The Creator has instilled into all humans.
Ralph: Well that's part of it, but I think many people like having some nice person of the opposite sex to be with and talk with, to enjoy the company of when they are in a strange town.
Charity: If that is the correct terminology, they are not – in the terms of the mate situation, it is still the correct term for the mate at home, for they are still mated. The ones who come to another country and enjoy the company of another one of your species, then they therefore are not mates because they are not mated.
Ralph: It is a one time thing.
Charity: But what you had just stated to us was that they go out and enjoy the company and that's it.
Ralph: Mostly, what I've heard, not having done it myself; a lot of people who hire prostitutes for an evening of company are not looking for the sexual activity as the primary goal. They are lonely, and these prostitutes learn to be sociable and entertaining, and they talk a lot. That's what they are really appreciated for. The sex is the ticket to get in the door. They will have sex at the end of the evening. But many guys, I understand, that hire them, are lonely people who haven't got many social skills and don't have any girlfriends to take out, and they don't have a wife. So that is the local people. The visiting ones, when they are out of town and their relatives aren't going to know about it at home, can pretty well pretend they are single. A lot of men do this. I've seen them in the AF; pilots did it frequently going to other countries for training. Pilots were unique in this, I understand. They could simply dissociate themselves from the family at home. They weren't criticizing the family at home. In their minds, they didn't have a family at home. When they landed there, there was no family at home. Some set up a whole new family in the other country. They married another woman and had children in another home for six months there and back for six months at their home country. They dissociated between the two. There were some men who were able to do that, and it was a major problem for the AF, for the wives at home got very upset. Those are different ways of it happening. All of that is considered BAD when you have sex outside of your marriage partner.
Charity: Because of the physical act, then that is considered bad.
Ralph: That makes it bad, yes. You can socialize, and they won't consider it bad.
Charity: But if you go to the point of coming to wherever you are, in the company of someone of the opposite gender, to converse, to talk to, to enjoy a movie, or whatever, that is accepted.
Ralph: That is moral, yes.
Charity: But to have sex, to bring it one step farther, then that is not appropriate.
Ralph: Correct. That's the code.
Charity: That makes no sense to ourselves.
Ralph: Well, that is why I am bringing it up.
Charity: So, if, for instance, with you talking to Marie, then you are in the acceptable standard. Therefore there should not be any, by any other humans observing the situation, they would know there is nothing else that goes further, correct?
Ralph: Well, if they don't see anything gross, like if we do not go into an apartment and stay there overnight and come out the next morning after breakfast, if we do that, then anyone would assume that we were doing something immoral. Because we could have.
Charity: But if nothing had happened at that time, why would the assumptions be made that they would do that?
Ralph: That's humans. They will assume that they were made. Then you must defend yourself against that.
Charity: Why would that be necessary?
Ralph: If you came before a judge or referee, such as in a divorce court. "Did he or did he not have sex with that person he spent all night with?"
Charity: But that's not an issue if nothing happened. You might have come over as a friend.
Ralph: True, and slept on the floor.
Charity: And needed to do such things,
Ralph: You are right, but, humans will assume the likelihood, the probability that two people in an apartment with one bedroom all night long will have had sex. That is going to he an automatic assumption of 95% of people who face that situation.
Charity: The assumptions are inadequate, inconsistent. The only way that the assumptions – no assumptions can ever be validated. The only way that anyone could know what had happened behind closed doors would be the individuals there or, if they advertised it.
Ralph: Or had a videotape.
Charity: Right, but if humans find it necessary to assume things that they do not have access to that will make their assumptions correct when no assumptions can be correct.
Ralph: There are principles that have been decided by judges on these matters. They talk about what the reasonable man, or the average person would think of in these situations. Now these are hypothetical, average person, a person who doesn't exist. This is lawyer talk. You have to understand lawyers make up meanings of words to suit their purposes. But this is what we face. And they would say that the odds are over 50% that if two people of opposite sex spend all night long in an apartment, that they had sex. That over half of them would have had sex. A reasonable man would assume that, and it would be true. That means you count up 100 people and 51 of them had sex under those conditions.
Charity: What do they do with the other percent?
Ralph: I'm just telling you what they talk like. I'm not debating your point. This is what we are faced with in our society. In the present world, this gets into politicians running for office, and the newspapers reporting about the girlfriends they had 20 years ago. You have one going right now with Mr. Gingrich, who is the head of Congress, and they are now coming up and they are saying that during his first marriage, he had sex with a campaign worker one time. You are talking about 25 years ago. Therefore – nobody says that is true or not, but they claim that probably happened. And therefore they are all concerned about the appearance of impropriety, of a sinful act. And this is the culture of the day, now. The newspaper people are looking for the appearance of an unsavory behavior that can besmirch this man's reputation. You didn't have to have done it, but if you went behind closed doors, with a female and was there longer than an hour, someone is going to think that he must have had sex with her during that hour. And that is the appearance of evil. We have gotten to that point. This is not a healthy development, but I'm letting you know that is what we have gotten in our culture by now. So the business of ethics is a two edged sword because there is nobody on earth that can't be caught on an appearance of an undesirable act when you use the kind of standards that I mention. And we are at the point where you don't dare touch a female of the opposite sex or go behind a closed door with them. Because then the appearance of impropriety will be brought up, and you can't even have that if you are going to run for public office.
Charity: Any human can become involved in a situation like that.
Ralph: That's exactly true. That is why you aren't getting very good people running for public office because the smart ones don't, those with any ability; why should they waste their time? You can't defend yourself; there's no way you can prove you didn't do something.
Charity: Correct.
Ralph: And that's what they're asking. Prove you didn't do something immoral when you two were behind that closed door.
Charity: You can't prove anything because it's going to be impossible to disprove it.
Ralph: Correct. In the past, its been up to the accuser to prove something happened behind that closed door.
Charity: Is there not a law in your justice system that states you are innocent until proven guilty?
Ralph: What about these big ethical issues of the day? Prostitution you mentioned already, with women selling their sex for money, and you don't get all up in arms about it. I thought that would be something that you would think would be a generally poor use of their bodies.
Charity: They are not hurting themselves. Why should we be concerned?
Ralph: Because, again, of one of the rules of God, as pronounced by the churches.
Charity: Did you happen to bring the book so we could finish up?
Ralph: I'm sorry. I don't know where it is. You are not supposed to have sex for any purpose but for having children. That is very clear in the Catholic church at least. You cannot even have fun. I mentioned that. The Catholic Church would never approve of that, you are not supposed to have fun that way.
Charity: The Creator made the human being to have, as we understand, a drive, so how can you, as a human, keep that drive from not occupying and not being used and discharged'?
Ralph: The Catholic church has said, "You should stay away from all women and only live with men if you are a man." That is what the priests do. Then they start molesting little boys and acting homosexually. So I don't think it works out too well.
Charity: So what we understand is that it is a rule of the Church or the religious function to put this onto human beings to make them perfect unto the sight of The Creator, correct?
Ralph: Yes, the results are in the quotations in the book on The Origin of Satan, that the idea of being pure spiritually included castration, of all things, so they couldn't have sex or babies. They cut it off. That was supposed to make them even purer. Some of these great theologians did that.
Charity: If that is supposed to have made them purer, then they would not have been born into a male or female species.
Ralph: We only have those two choices.
Charity: You have what we are.
Ralph: These are the only two choices we've got.
Charity: Or they would not have been born. Therefore no aspect of a human is perfect, nothing.
Ralph: OK.
Charity: So why try to be something or attain something that is totally unobtainable?
Ralph: Because that makes you like Christ. I think that would be the card that they would use.
Charity: And Christ was supposed to have been the son of The Creator
Ralph: Because he never had sex with anyone all his life.
Charity's Views on the Sabbath
When I had conversations in 1995 with Charity, a Professor CIE and my spiritual mentor, we covered the Biblical injunction to keep holy the Sabbath, Sunday in our calendar. Here is the transcript of that discussion.
Ralph: One , two, three, four, "There is no god but me, make no graven images, don't use the Lord's name in vain”. Then "observe the Sabbath and keep it holy as I, the Lord your God, has commanded you. You have six days in which to do your work, on the Seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to me. On that day, no one is to work, neither you, your children, your slaves, your animals, or the foreigners who live in your country. The slaves must rest, just as you do. Remember, you were slaves in Egypt and I, the Lord your god, rescued you by my great power and strength. That is why I command you to observe the Sabbath."
Charity: The Creator does not rest. We do not rest.
Ralph: That's what the story says. He rested on the Seventh day after creating the world.
Charity: Why would the Creator need to do that? The Creator is not human. The Creator is energy. Why should The Creator be tired?
Ralph: I'm just telling you what the story said.
Charity: It makes no sense to ourselves, because The Creator is pure energy. The Creator cannot become tired. The Creator is not a human being. The Creator is energy, pure and simple, and is the creator of ourselves.
Ralph: I think I could see a few other flaws in that, too. You don't have days of the week there.
Charity: No.
Ralph: So therefore, without time concept, you have no reason for seven days to go past anyway.
Charity: No.
Ralph: You wouldn't know when the Sabbath was.
Charity: No, we wouldn't know on what day the Creator was supposed to start creating.
Ralph: We do have some conflict there – which day is the Sabbath, anyhow? Some say it is Sunday and some say it is Saturday.
Charity: Do not some say it is Friday, also?
Ralph: The Jews start Friday and go through Sunday. I'm sure you have some somewhere who call it Tuesday, if they want to.
Charity: As we state, first and foremost, The Creator is not going to know it. We don't have time for that. I think that pretty well answers that avenue.
Ralph: So it doesn't make any sense to take a day off to rest?
Charity: The Creator does not need rest.
Ralph: But the humans do; they do better that way.
Charity: Right, therefore that is why they are stating that avenue. It's their rule.
Ralph: A good social rule.
Charity: Of course. But don't you not have priests and men who lead the worship who work on those days.
Ralph: I lived with one, remember.
Charity: Right.
Ralph: His biggest day was Sunday, and I was told he couldn't work on Sunday. Because of that rule, I didn't.
Charity: The rule is not followed, is it not?
Ralph: Believe it or not, while at home, I did not see the contradiction. I feel awfully stupid for not having seen that, but I lived under the injunction that I was not allowed to work at any job I had on Sundays, and I met that restriction when I got my first job in the ice cream store where the biggest day was Sunday when everybody had visitors over and wanted ice cream. They would come down to the store on Sunday afternoon to get the ice cream for Sunday night. And I had a heck of a time saying, "Should I go to work?" Fortunately my uncle was visiting and he said, "Go to work!" He was a preacher, so I got sanctioned, but that nearly ruined my entry into the workforce.
Charity: The Creator does not need you to be tired.
Ralph: But my father was busy, busy, all day Sunday.
Charity: So therefore it is not really being followed.
Ralph: Anyhow, it's here.
Charity: So it's another human made rule.
Ralph: One , two, three, four, "There is no god but me, make no graven images, don't use the Lord's name in vain”. Then "observe the Sabbath and keep it holy as I, the Lord your God, has commanded you. You have six days in which to do your work, on the Seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to me. On that day, no one is to work, neither you, your children, your slaves, your animals, or the foreigners who live in your country. The slaves must rest, just as you do. Remember, you were slaves in Egypt and I, the Lord your god, rescued you by my great power and strength. That is why I command you to observe the Sabbath."
Charity: The Creator does not rest. We do not rest.
Ralph: That's what the story says. He rested on the Seventh day after creating the world.
Charity: Why would the Creator need to do that? The Creator is not human. The Creator is energy. Why should The Creator be tired?
Ralph: I'm just telling you what the story said.
Charity: It makes no sense to ourselves, because The Creator is pure energy. The Creator cannot become tired. The Creator is not a human being. The Creator is energy, pure and simple, and is the creator of ourselves.
Ralph: I think I could see a few other flaws in that, too. You don't have days of the week there.
Charity: No.
Ralph: So therefore, without time concept, you have no reason for seven days to go past anyway.
Charity: No.
Ralph: You wouldn't know when the Sabbath was.
Charity: No, we wouldn't know on what day the Creator was supposed to start creating.
Ralph: We do have some conflict there – which day is the Sabbath, anyhow? Some say it is Sunday and some say it is Saturday.
Charity: Do not some say it is Friday, also?
Ralph: The Jews start Friday and go through Sunday. I'm sure you have some somewhere who call it Tuesday, if they want to.
Charity: As we state, first and foremost, The Creator is not going to know it. We don't have time for that. I think that pretty well answers that avenue.
Ralph: So it doesn't make any sense to take a day off to rest?
Charity: The Creator does not need rest.
Ralph: But the humans do; they do better that way.
Charity: Right, therefore that is why they are stating that avenue. It's their rule.
Ralph: A good social rule.
Charity: Of course. But don't you not have priests and men who lead the worship who work on those days.
Ralph: I lived with one, remember.
Charity: Right.
Ralph: His biggest day was Sunday, and I was told he couldn't work on Sunday. Because of that rule, I didn't.
Charity: The rule is not followed, is it not?
Ralph: Believe it or not, while at home, I did not see the contradiction. I feel awfully stupid for not having seen that, but I lived under the injunction that I was not allowed to work at any job I had on Sundays, and I met that restriction when I got my first job in the ice cream store where the biggest day was Sunday when everybody had visitors over and wanted ice cream. They would come down to the store on Sunday afternoon to get the ice cream for Sunday night. And I had a heck of a time saying, "Should I go to work?" Fortunately my uncle was visiting and he said, "Go to work!" He was a preacher, so I got sanctioned, but that nearly ruined my entry into the workforce.
Charity: The Creator does not need you to be tired.
Ralph: But my father was busy, busy, all day Sunday.
Charity: So therefore it is not really being followed.
Ralph: Anyhow, it's here.
Charity: So it's another human made rule.
Charity's Views on Healing by Faith
When I had discussions in 1995 with Charity, a Professor CIE and my spiritual mentor, we covered the idea of physical healing because of faith that God would heal us. This is the transcript of that conversation.
Ralph: Oral Roberts was on this program.
Charity: Oh, we know.
Ralph: He got started when he had TB when he was a teenager. He had been a trouble maker and a ne’er-do-well apparently before that. He was not doing according to what his family wanted him to do.
Charity: Correct.
Ralph: Everybody else got TB and died. He got TB and I think it made a great impact on him, that everybody had died just before he did. So I think he was afraid of dying.
Charity: Of course.
Ralph: But he felt that he had faith in God at that moment. Because he had faith in God, who then could heal him, is why he got well. They make a point of this over and over again that – and the Christian Scientists do this all the time – if you have enough faith in God, God will heal you. When you don’t get healed, it’s your fault for not having enough faith. That’s the way they look at it.
Charity: What we are stating on that aspect is first of all, if it is in your Life Plan to get well, you will get well. Period. Your Essence will take care of it.
Ralph: You are very clear about that. And if you have faith in God while this is happening?
Charity: You have faith in it?
Ralph: I’m not sure what that means, you see?
Charity: What we think they were stating is that if you have enough belief in something in The Creator to bring about a physical well being, that it will bring about a physical well being. If you have enough belief. But if you don’t believe strongly enough, therefore you as a human have failed. Therefore you have a concept that you as a human must have enough faith – if you do not have enough belief system, then you are not going to get well. If you do not get well, you did not have a strong enough belief system. Why do you humans choose to do that?
Ralph: I'm taking from you that that is not a correct interpretation as to why people get well.
Charity: No.
Ralph: You have said that already, I'm just pointing it out. Having enough faith in God is not going to create the cure.
Charity: Correct.
Ralph: If your plan is to get sick and die.
Charity: Correct.
Ralph: OK. All right. They also had some comments there about people who are spiritual getting sick less often than people who are not spiritual.
Charity: That is a falsehood.
Ralph: Well, what is the point in being spiritual if it’s not going to keep you alive longer?
Charity: Are you spiritual?
Ralph: I don’t know. I think so. I'm not sick. See, that proves it.
Charity: Again, that’s what the humans do to each human. It’s not the humans’ design to try – what the humans are trying to do is try to show that other humans are below what they are in a belief system. They are showing a fallacy in what other humans believe. If they don’t get well, or believe strong enough that they are going to get well, then they don’t meet the high standards of what the other humans have done. So they are in an innate guilt system that they do to other humans.
Ralph: Oral Roberts was on this program.
Charity: Oh, we know.
Ralph: He got started when he had TB when he was a teenager. He had been a trouble maker and a ne’er-do-well apparently before that. He was not doing according to what his family wanted him to do.
Charity: Correct.
Ralph: Everybody else got TB and died. He got TB and I think it made a great impact on him, that everybody had died just before he did. So I think he was afraid of dying.
Charity: Of course.
Ralph: But he felt that he had faith in God at that moment. Because he had faith in God, who then could heal him, is why he got well. They make a point of this over and over again that – and the Christian Scientists do this all the time – if you have enough faith in God, God will heal you. When you don’t get healed, it’s your fault for not having enough faith. That’s the way they look at it.
Charity: What we are stating on that aspect is first of all, if it is in your Life Plan to get well, you will get well. Period. Your Essence will take care of it.
Ralph: You are very clear about that. And if you have faith in God while this is happening?
Charity: You have faith in it?
Ralph: I’m not sure what that means, you see?
Charity: What we think they were stating is that if you have enough belief in something in The Creator to bring about a physical well being, that it will bring about a physical well being. If you have enough belief. But if you don’t believe strongly enough, therefore you as a human have failed. Therefore you have a concept that you as a human must have enough faith – if you do not have enough belief system, then you are not going to get well. If you do not get well, you did not have a strong enough belief system. Why do you humans choose to do that?
Ralph: I'm taking from you that that is not a correct interpretation as to why people get well.
Charity: No.
Ralph: You have said that already, I'm just pointing it out. Having enough faith in God is not going to create the cure.
Charity: Correct.
Ralph: If your plan is to get sick and die.
Charity: Correct.
Ralph: OK. All right. They also had some comments there about people who are spiritual getting sick less often than people who are not spiritual.
Charity: That is a falsehood.
Ralph: Well, what is the point in being spiritual if it’s not going to keep you alive longer?
Charity: Are you spiritual?
Ralph: I don’t know. I think so. I'm not sick. See, that proves it.
Charity: Again, that’s what the humans do to each human. It’s not the humans’ design to try – what the humans are trying to do is try to show that other humans are below what they are in a belief system. They are showing a fallacy in what other humans believe. If they don’t get well, or believe strong enough that they are going to get well, then they don’t meet the high standards of what the other humans have done. So they are in an innate guilt system that they do to other humans.
Charity's Views on Resurrection
During 1995, I had many conversations with Charity, a Professor CIE and my spiritual mentor. Below is one regarding what might happen at the time of the resurrection of all Christians.
Charity: We are most happy but not around any religion.
Ralph: This is a little point that we could debate with the Christians on the resurrection of all believers at some point in the future when Christ will arise from the dead and all of them will arise. Who wants to resurrect these bodies that are causing all these troubles? Why should that be a great glorious advantage?
Charity: As we have stated many times over, which body?
Ralph: Why have any of them? They are all defective in the first place.
Charity: That is correct. Why would anyone want them?
Ralph: Why would that be a great and glorious goal? I don’t get it.
Charity: We don’t understand that avenue either. Somehow when they designed writing the book, someone had to come up with that avenue. Why a physical joyous reunion with a physical body that brought them joy, but every human can testify that the body is not joyous in itself?
Ralph: It has to fall apart, or they wouldn’t have died. I don’t see how it ever got to be such a wonderful goal.
Charity: As we once stated, it was written in the book that should tell humans the basic avenue of that.
Charity: We are most happy but not around any religion.
Ralph: This is a little point that we could debate with the Christians on the resurrection of all believers at some point in the future when Christ will arise from the dead and all of them will arise. Who wants to resurrect these bodies that are causing all these troubles? Why should that be a great glorious advantage?
Charity: As we have stated many times over, which body?
Ralph: Why have any of them? They are all defective in the first place.
Charity: That is correct. Why would anyone want them?
Ralph: Why would that be a great and glorious goal? I don’t get it.
Charity: We don’t understand that avenue either. Somehow when they designed writing the book, someone had to come up with that avenue. Why a physical joyous reunion with a physical body that brought them joy, but every human can testify that the body is not joyous in itself?
Ralph: It has to fall apart, or they wouldn’t have died. I don’t see how it ever got to be such a wonderful goal.
Charity: As we once stated, it was written in the book that should tell humans the basic avenue of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
